312 deep freedom
and enhance the denaturalization of the social regime: the weakening
of the contrast between our ordinary, structure- preserving moves
and our extraordinary, structure- transforming eff orts. Each domain
of our experience should be so or ga nized that it approaches, according
to the special constraints and opportunities of that domain, the regu-
lative ideal of a society in which no aspect of the institutional and
ideological framework remains beyond our power to challenge and to
reshape.
Th is third consequence of the principle of plurality has a corollary
for the relation between institutional convergence and divergence in-
side each country or region of the world. Free societies must enjoy the
power to innovate and to diverge, within themselves, not just among
themselves in the way they shape markets, democracies, and civil so-
cieties. Th ey must possess both the institutional and the conceptual
means to create novel varieties of po liti cal, economic, and social plural-
ism. Th e established forms of the market economy, of representative
democracy, and of in de pen dent civil society are hostile to such ex-
perimentation. Th is goal helps inform an agenda, given the very lim-
ited scope of institutional arrangements and ideas that are now on off er
in the world, either in practice or in doctrine, and the relatively inelas-
tic character of the stock of institutional alternatives at any one time.
Market economies remain fastened to a par tic u lar version of the idea
of a market order, embodied in their systems of private law and oft en
justifi ed as the natural and necessary expression of spontaneous order
in economic life. Alternative regimes of property and contract should,
instead, come to coexist experimentally, gaining a greater or lesser foot-
hold in diff erent parts of the economic order. As a result, freedom to
recombine factors of production within an unchallenged framework of
production and exchange would extend into freedom to innovate con-
tinuously in the arrangements comprising such a framework.
Civil societies remain unor ga nized or unequally or ga nized, under
the provisions of contract, corporate, and labor law, and denied, as a
result of their disor ga ni za tion, the chance to share directly in the cre-
ation of alternative social futures. Th ey cannot create law from the bot-
tom up, not even law regarding their own or ga ni za tion. All they can do
is vie for voice and infl uence in the making of law by the state. Th e
bonds of solidarity in social life, rather than resting on the strong basis